An investigation into egg prices(thebignewsletter.com)
thebignewsletter.com
An investigation into egg prices
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/hatching-a-conspiracy-a-big-investigation
174 comments
> Understanding a problem requires a holistic view of the larger system.
It does, but the result is extremely uncomfortable. And the solving it will require actions that are even more uncomfortable.
You have to come to grips with the fact that there are monopolies at every single level. There is no inventory anywhere except bottom. There is no over capacity at any level.
Consequently, supply and demand simply do not work. There is no "excess supply" to use to make extra profit by eating the extra demand. There is no upstart supplier who can absorb the extra demand. The big suppliers can ratchet up prices with zero consequences. What are you gonna do about it?
> it’s scary to me that people lack the skills, the desire or incentives to understand and objectively seek understanding of what’s happening around us especially in highly charged US political landscape.
They don't lack the skills. They have chosen to treat politics like sportsball rather than something to actively think about.
It does, but the result is extremely uncomfortable. And the solving it will require actions that are even more uncomfortable.
You have to come to grips with the fact that there are monopolies at every single level. There is no inventory anywhere except bottom. There is no over capacity at any level.
Consequently, supply and demand simply do not work. There is no "excess supply" to use to make extra profit by eating the extra demand. There is no upstart supplier who can absorb the extra demand. The big suppliers can ratchet up prices with zero consequences. What are you gonna do about it?
> it’s scary to me that people lack the skills, the desire or incentives to understand and objectively seek understanding of what’s happening around us especially in highly charged US political landscape.
They don't lack the skills. They have chosen to treat politics like sportsball rather than something to actively think about.
>"The big suppliers can ratchet up prices with zero consequences. What are you gonna do about it?"
I think one (uncomfortable) solution is this. Consumers should budget their expenses. So when the egg prices increase, they should consume less to maintain their budget for eggs, for example, a month.
This will mean that when the companies increases prices, more of their stock will remain unsold, increasing their expenses stocking them to go up. This could also cause disruptions on their supply chain. This should force them to reduce prices.
I think one (uncomfortable) solution is this. Consumers should budget their expenses. So when the egg prices increase, they should consume less to maintain their budget for eggs, for example, a month.
This will mean that when the companies increases prices, more of their stock will remain unsold, increasing their expenses stocking them to go up. This could also cause disruptions on their supply chain. This should force them to reduce prices.
you said “budget” in the context of America. 93.98% of americans are not finacially literate enough to budget. this is by design…
It doesn't have to be so formal, and for most people it's more like "wow eggs have gotten expensive, I'll skip buying them this week" that is what I do, same with beef and anything else that just seems like it costs too much. Or I'll shop around, there are people selling eggs from their home-kept chickens at the side of the road for less than supermarket prices (I realize that doesn't scale, at least not quickly).
you are the 6.02% :)
I do the same for EVERYTHING. my wife and I make a decent living but we drew lines when the prices started going up. we can afford it, not just eggs but also other things that have been price gouged in the last couple of years. issue is of course there are not enough of us to make a difference
I do the same for EVERYTHING. my wife and I make a decent living but we drew lines when the prices started going up. we can afford it, not just eggs but also other things that have been price gouged in the last couple of years. issue is of course there are not enough of us to make a difference
There is no economic system that can accommodate a population that refuses to respond to prices. That said, I think your numbers are overly pessimistic.
The critical part to remember is that people dont have to do the math and do the budgetary calculus. If they cant afford the eggs, they cant buy them.
The critical part to remember is that people dont have to do the math and do the budgetary calculus. If they cant afford the eggs, they cant buy them.
I think there is small percentage of people that cannot afford the eggs. we are not talking diamond rings here - even if dozen eggs were $20 it is still $20 - most families can afford that...
>What are you gonna do about it?
There are some other options:
Substitute blood - https://nordicfoodlab.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/2013-9-blood-... - I am not sure why people don't do this but maybe they are squeamish. Food grade blood is cheap and readily available from slaughterhouses and butchers.
Buy some chickens
There are some other options:
Substitute blood - https://nordicfoodlab.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/2013-9-blood-... - I am not sure why people don't do this but maybe they are squeamish. Food grade blood is cheap and readily available from slaughterhouses and butchers.
Buy some chickens
> I am not sure why people don't do this
I don't substituting blood for eggs is a widely-known option. I'd never heard of it before now, and I have a somewhat above-average amateur interest in cooking and food science.
I don't substituting blood for eggs is a widely-known option. I'd never heard of it before now, and I have a somewhat above-average amateur interest in cooking and food science.
What am I gonna do about it? I'm going to start buying from the small farm half a mile from me that has eggs in an honor box at the end of their driveway.
There is no inventory anywhere except bottom? Fine. I'll go to the bottom.
> They have chosen to treat politics like sportsball rather than something to actively think about.
Not going to argue about that one...
There is no inventory anywhere except bottom? Fine. I'll go to the bottom.
> They have chosen to treat politics like sportsball rather than something to actively think about.
Not going to argue about that one...
Nailed it. To disinter-mediate the monopoly vertical, you must source locally, and work together to ensure that local supply remains operational. You "step out" of the capture.
> What are you gonna do about it?
Substitute tofu?
Substitute tofu?
Even at $6.50/dozen, eggs are cheaper than tofu, which is $3 for 14 oz where I'm at.
FWIW, Costco or low-cost Asian grocers are less than half that price for tofu.
And in terms of protein, a dozen eggs is pretty close to the same amount of protein as 14oz of firm tofu... so my cost for tofu protein is like a quarter of my cost for egg protein. (Organic in either case, fwiw.)
And in terms of protein, a dozen eggs is pretty close to the same amount of protein as 14oz of firm tofu... so my cost for tofu protein is like a quarter of my cost for egg protein. (Organic in either case, fwiw.)
Get some dried lentils.
They last a long time, are cheap as shit, and extremely healthy with the lowest dollar per gram of protein and couple it with a bunch of fiber and whole host of beneficial micronutrients.
They last a long time, are cheap as shit, and extremely healthy with the lowest dollar per gram of protein and couple it with a bunch of fiber and whole host of beneficial micronutrients.
Cottage cheese has 2.5x the protein content of eggs, and is currently cheaper. Or you can mix the two for the same taste but cost savings.
Cottage cheese is a terrible idea with bird flu floating around in dairy, complete chaos in the systems that are supposed to inspect these supply chains, and voluntary testing requirements that meant even when the inspection systems were not chaotic they were way behind the 8 ball.
And for obvious reasons, bird flu infecting mammals is likely to be a greater risk to humans than that present in birds.
And for obvious reasons, bird flu infecting mammals is likely to be a greater risk to humans than that present in birds.
> Cottage cheese is a terrible idea with bird flu floating around in dairy
Almost all dairy in any normal supermarket has been pasteurized. I would say "all" but I'm sure there is at least a single exception somewhere even if I can't find it.
Raw milk products at your "natural" farmer's market on the other hand ...
Almost all dairy in any normal supermarket has been pasteurized. I would say "all" but I'm sure there is at least a single exception somewhere even if I can't find it.
Raw milk products at your "natural" farmer's market on the other hand ...
That's ridiculous. Cottage cheese is typically pasteurized, therefore safe.
(We're not talking about cottage cheese from raw cow's milk).
Cottage cheese is a fine idea, hysteria about bird flu is overdone, cottage cheese is healthier than processed meat, in the US. Remember Chipotle's multiple meat handling scandals that sickened 1100? You can't point to similar for cottage cheese.
(We're not talking about cottage cheese from raw cow's milk).
Cottage cheese is a fine idea, hysteria about bird flu is overdone, cottage cheese is healthier than processed meat, in the US. Remember Chipotle's multiple meat handling scandals that sickened 1100? You can't point to similar for cottage cheese.
You could make it your self for the cost of soybeans basically. It's a cheap food sold as a gourmet item because it's rare. Like a lot of other fermented foods.
> It's a cheap food sold as a gourmet item because it's rare.
> Like a lot of _other_ fermented foods.
I meant "cheap" because it is easy to make from scratch.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+I++make+tofu+from+scr...
As for "other fermented foods" your final sentence admits it works as used in my post.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+I++make+tofu+from+scr...
As for "other fermented foods" your final sentence admits it works as used in my post.
Eggs are 9.99 per dozen where I am. Tri-tip is $3.99/lb and pork can often be had for $1.99. Hell, a month ago we bought a 20lb ham for $0.49/lb.
huh... we haven't gotten there yet in my neck of the woods, but where you are, pound for pound, boneless chicken meat is probably cheaper than chicken eggs.
> They have chosen to treat politics like sportsball rather than something to actively think about.
More like neo-religion.
More like neo-religion.
"The big suppliers can ratchet up prices with zero consequences. What are you gonna do about it?"
If I was that bothered about eggs, I'd simply grow my own. Americans on average have way more space to mess around in than say most Europeans - the place is fucking huge. Chickens are very easy to "grow your own".
I'm not an American and clearly you have managed to get your collective knickers in a twist over a non issue, which almost certainly means that there is a bigger picture and a rather more important issue that really needs fixing.
Please stop fiddling whilst Rome burns.
If I was that bothered about eggs, I'd simply grow my own. Americans on average have way more space to mess around in than say most Europeans - the place is fucking huge. Chickens are very easy to "grow your own".
I'm not an American and clearly you have managed to get your collective knickers in a twist over a non issue, which almost certainly means that there is a bigger picture and a rather more important issue that really needs fixing.
Please stop fiddling whilst Rome burns.
A lot of Americans live in houses and neighborhoods where keeping chickens is simply not allowed.
Source: just got done cutting some pine trees on a hill behind my house because we got a notice. They will absolutely throw a fit, if we kept chickens
Source: just got done cutting some pine trees on a hill behind my house because we got a notice. They will absolutely throw a fit, if we kept chickens
The problem isn't the laws and the prices and the monopolies and all that stuff.
The problem is that people don't see anything wrong or shameful about being the person who was bitching about the noises roosters make in 2017 and then also being the person bitching about inflexible supply chains and egg prices in 2025.
If it wasn't eggs it'd be some other thing.
The problem is that people don't see anything wrong or shameful about being the person who was bitching about the noises roosters make in 2017 and then also being the person bitching about inflexible supply chains and egg prices in 2025.
If it wasn't eggs it'd be some other thing.
Every state has right-to-farm laws. Most only protect commercial farming, but not all and sometimes the definition of commercial is rather loose, so it might be worth looking into.
But those are often trumped by county or municipal laws.
e.g. Most urban/suburban parts of California either restrict or require permits to raise backyard chickens (also, predators are a huge problem):
https://www.omlet.us/guide/chickens/laws_about_keeping_chick...
https://www.quora.com/Are-backyard-chickens-legal-in-Califor...
(Palo Alto: Up to six hens. Mountain View: Up to four hens. Los Altos: One hen per 1000 sq feet, no permit required. Sunnyvale: Zoning laws apply. Santa Clara: zoning restrictions apply. San Jose: Up to six without a permit, up to 20 with a permit. San Mateo: Up to 10 birds, depending on plot size, with a minimum plot requirement of 2500 sq feet (excludes most people). No permit required. San Francisco: Up to four, roosters allowed, no permit required. Oakland: No number restrictions, no permit required. Berkeley: No number restrictions, no permit required, roosters allowed. Anarchy!)
What we need roundabout now is a webcam campaign/tutorial on legal backyard chicken raising...
https://www.omlet.us/guide/chickens/laws_about_keeping_chick...
https://www.quora.com/Are-backyard-chickens-legal-in-Califor...
(Palo Alto: Up to six hens. Mountain View: Up to four hens. Los Altos: One hen per 1000 sq feet, no permit required. Sunnyvale: Zoning laws apply. Santa Clara: zoning restrictions apply. San Jose: Up to six without a permit, up to 20 with a permit. San Mateo: Up to 10 birds, depending on plot size, with a minimum plot requirement of 2500 sq feet (excludes most people). No permit required. San Francisco: Up to four, roosters allowed, no permit required. Oakland: No number restrictions, no permit required. Berkeley: No number restrictions, no permit required, roosters allowed. Anarchy!)
What we need roundabout now is a webcam campaign/tutorial on legal backyard chicken raising...
> San Francisco: Up to four, roosters allowed, no permit required
No idea about how viable this in each of those cities, but maybe 2025 is the time for us to go read https://www.reddit.com/r/BackYardChickens/ (similar to bleach, hand-sanitizer and toilet paper in 2020.) Yes the noise around dawn is why roosters are sometimes restricted (or make your neighbors way more likely to complain). My neighbor in San Jose had a rooster that crowed 25% of mornings.
I should have said above the $$$ reason predators are a huge problem in urban/suburban areas is you can't legally shoot them/ use BB guns, and it's near-impossible to use poison (if you have pets or small kids, or your neighbors' pets pass through). So if you regularly have to spend $500++ on a professional exterminator for a single fox or raccoon, there goes your entire $ viability. It's not at all like a farm in a rural county. HN business idea: is there any multiple infrared camera security setup that can behaviorally distinguish between predators vs your own pet, in the middle of the night? without needing to AirTag your pets?
I should have said above the $$$ reason predators are a huge problem in urban/suburban areas is you can't legally shoot them/ use BB guns, and it's near-impossible to use poison (if you have pets or small kids, or your neighbors' pets pass through). So if you regularly have to spend $500++ on a professional exterminator for a single fox or raccoon, there goes your entire $ viability. It's not at all like a farm in a rural county. HN business idea: is there any multiple infrared camera security setup that can behaviorally distinguish between predators vs your own pet, in the middle of the night? without needing to AirTag your pets?
I have my own and I don't even like eggs that much. I do however like their noises, and for pest control, so I keep getting new birds.
$33 for 6 birds, last month. They're not fully feathered yet.
$33 for 6 birds, last month. They're not fully feathered yet.
noise control?
Probably means the noise, ie clucking, not noise control.
yes, i forgot a comma, your sibling is right, i like the noises they make, especially at night when they're sleeping.
you cannot just wake up and decide to grow your own, it is regulated heavily :)
Here are my local laws, not too crazy.
https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2010-89/current/h...
https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2010-89/current/h...
sorry mate - I was referring to the USA without saying so :)
> This isn’t like pure scientific pursuit of knowledge but a more practical day to day ability to question, understand and gather new information with the purpose of developing an objective understanding of the world.
you've just described scientific persuit.
Just because the object of said persuit pertains to everyday life, doesn't mean it isn't scientific. The goal of science is to understand truth, and discern it from falsehoods (which might appear true intuitively).
Science isn't about researching niche, or cutting edge things. It's about the method, rigor and ability to change one's mind based on evidence regardless of priors.
you've just described scientific persuit.
Just because the object of said persuit pertains to everyday life, doesn't mean it isn't scientific. The goal of science is to understand truth, and discern it from falsehoods (which might appear true intuitively).
Science isn't about researching niche, or cutting edge things. It's about the method, rigor and ability to change one's mind based on evidence regardless of priors.
Yes, and unfortunately the “desire” for scientific research of everyday life is hard to maintain because frankly in our current times it has dawned on many that scientific research is unable, by itself, to prevent or limit actions taken that fly in the face of the said research. So some domain experts have realized that upping their social media game is a better investment than broadening their scientific research efforts, because you’ve already lost if you are unable to derail a delusional narrative in real time. It’s the era of yellow journalism 2.0.
> Understanding a problem requires a holistic view of the larger system.
In my experience, people don’t care about systems, they care about outcomes. The world is driven by people who care about outcomes and held together by people who understand systems.
In my experience, people don’t care about systems, they care about outcomes. The world is driven by people who care about outcomes and held together by people who understand systems.
Generally correlates with my own view on the subject. After reading two USDA reports on the subject "Chickens and Eggs" [1] and "Egg Markets Overview" [2] it seemed like the markets are not responding to actual supply / demand issues. The losses, while large "sounding" (30 million), are not really that enormous in the context of 369 million egg laying flock, down 2% from the previous year. And most of the losses were heavily constrained to the Ohio (44%) / Illinois (22%) area.
[1] https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...
[2] https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_3725.pdf
[1] https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...
[2] https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_3725.pdf
The article you're commenting on states that 115 million egg-laying hens were culled, not 30 million.
I admit I have not read the article yet but I have done independent research into these stats previously a few weeks ago. I found the 30m quoted number is the monthly cull amount. I have seen many references to the 115m or similar numbers but have no idea over what time period. I had my own ~120m number come up from my calculations: The industry claims it takes 4-6 months to clean, disinfect, hatch and re-grow, and get the chickens to egg-laying age. If you take the ~30m and ~4-6m period, you end up around ~120-180m "missing" egg-laying chickens in the flock at any time assuming this replacement is taking place at expected levels.
The article's 115 million is over 3 years. Your 30 million monthly represents one sampling period within that same 3 year period.
Us cull numbers in 2024 were between 130mm and 180mm depending on who is saying the numbers.
But I heard our flock numbers in that period were 10 times that. So I'm not sure what to think.
I do know it was easy to get chicks this year, so that confused me even more.
Perhaps the lack of grocery eggs was because they were incubated instead?
I don't know.
But I heard our flock numbers in that period were 10 times that. So I'm not sure what to think.
I do know it was easy to get chicks this year, so that confused me even more.
Perhaps the lack of grocery eggs was because they were incubated instead?
I don't know.
> Perhaps the lack of grocery eggs was because they were incubated instead?
Grocery eggs aren't even fertilized.
Grocery eggs aren't even fertilized.
Some are:
https://www.delish.com/food-news/a63842548/what-are-fertile-...
You will find a number of people who have claimed to have hatched a number of types of birds from store eggs, including chickens.
https://www.delish.com/food-news/a63842548/what-are-fertile-...
You will find a number of people who have claimed to have hatched a number of types of birds from store eggs, including chickens.
I didn't hatch a live bird, but one time I broke a store egg over a meal in the pan and it was filled with blood, a fetus and a couple tiny feathers
We had a similar experience at my house one time, except it was in a bowl and all we saw was blood in the yoke. It had not been quite as developed as the one in your egg.
Those are supposed to be pulled before they make it out of the packaging plant. They shine a light through the egg and detect if there is an embryo inside. The process is called "candling." Of course it is imperfect especially if the egg is very recently fertilized. I've gotten one or two with a red spot in the yolk over the years, but nothing close to a developed chick.
where do chickens come from? eggs! If one needs more chickens, one could let the eggs be fertilized and then incubate those eggs. all you need is a rooster in good health. Eggs that are incubated in this way won't be in the grocery store in cartons, because they will be chickens instead.
It's a very different supply chain. You don't just chuck a rooster in with your layers because then you have to inspect all your eggs.
New layers are bred away from the main flocks in relatively tiny volumes, under 1% of layers' eggs. Culls may drive a need for more layers to be raised, increasing that percentage but the cycle rate for these hens in intensive farms is pretty regular already (<18 months) so I doubt they'd invest in the additional hatchery facilities for a temporary population lull.
New layers are bred away from the main flocks in relatively tiny volumes, under 1% of layers' eggs. Culls may drive a need for more layers to be raised, increasing that percentage but the cycle rate for these hens in intensive farms is pretty regular already (<18 months) so I doubt they'd invest in the additional hatchery facilities for a temporary population lull.
> increasing that percentage but the cycle rate for these hens in intensive farms is pretty regular already (<18 months) so I doubt they'd invest in the additional hatchery facilities for a temporary population lull.
this actually speaks to my point more than the other replies you (and other) gave. A temporary shed for layers to nest isn't insurmountable. Especially if you know that the end result is more money for you because of supply issues.
What i am not sure about, is why that didn't happen, since you say it did not. anyhow, it was just an idle thought. If i was selling eggs, and suddenly a quarter of my flock was wiped out - by a fox or something - i would probably immediately borrow a rooster and let the layers nest. I've done it before, so i'm not just "guessing." Contemplating protecting nesting chickens is the only thing that gives me pause, as i don't really like "outside dogs", but i have a herding dog.
this actually speaks to my point more than the other replies you (and other) gave. A temporary shed for layers to nest isn't insurmountable. Especially if you know that the end result is more money for you because of supply issues.
What i am not sure about, is why that didn't happen, since you say it did not. anyhow, it was just an idle thought. If i was selling eggs, and suddenly a quarter of my flock was wiped out - by a fox or something - i would probably immediately borrow a rooster and let the layers nest. I've done it before, so i'm not just "guessing." Contemplating protecting nesting chickens is the only thing that gives me pause, as i don't really like "outside dogs", but i have a herding dog.
Because it's not just nesting space.
Chicks are processed at enormous speed and volume. Males are killed and the females are boxed up and sent to farms. This is factory level work and involves expensive automation. The size of flocks makes doing this without automation unfeasibly slow.
So egg farmers who lose a flock just buy another. They might have to wait for their scheduled order to come in. They don't spend $20m on a temporary hatchery facility.
Chicks are processed at enormous speed and volume. Males are killed and the females are boxed up and sent to farms. This is factory level work and involves expensive automation. The size of flocks makes doing this without automation unfeasibly slow.
So egg farmers who lose a flock just buy another. They might have to wait for their scheduled order to come in. They don't spend $20m on a temporary hatchery facility.
I have since read the article and you are correct, thank you.
It's like with anything else. You can SAY monopolies are illegal, but if you allow them to exist, then owning and controlling the market is, legal.
Any small competition that eventually gets large enough will just be bought out by the next one up in the food chain (literally).
Any small competition that eventually gets large enough will just be bought out by the next one up in the food chain (literally).
And yet, this is the inevitable end-game of unfettered capitalism: to monopolize a market and prevent new entrants so as to eliminate competition and lock-in customers to a single producer that can set prices to whatever they want.
If the orange Cheeto was truly interested in combatting corruption, he would break apart this entire industry clear down to individual factories and processing plants, and implement laws to prevent anyone from ever buying out anyone else. Consolidation would be impossible, only organic growth would still be legal.
Or just put the entire industry under public control by nationalizing the industry. Without investors and CEOs to Hoover up those profits, prices could crater by 80% or more without affecting production or maintenance.
If the orange Cheeto was truly interested in combatting corruption, he would break apart this entire industry clear down to individual factories and processing plants, and implement laws to prevent anyone from ever buying out anyone else. Consolidation would be impossible, only organic growth would still be legal.
Or just put the entire industry under public control by nationalizing the industry. Without investors and CEOs to Hoover up those profits, prices could crater by 80% or more without affecting production or maintenance.
> and implement laws to prevent anyone from ever buying out anyone else. Consolidation would be impossible, only organic growth would still be legal.
Game theoretically, these groups would still collude to maximise profits.
Game theoretically, these groups would still collude to maximise profits.
Yes, but we understand that game and have a strong legal base to tackle it as well (see: Cartels & the Sherman Act/Clayton Acts).
Further - It's REALLY hard to keep a cartel stable (much less secret) if there are more than single-digit members. Hell - OPEC is a great example. It's only 12 country members, and they can barely hold the thing together. Angola just left last year over disagreements...
So breaking up the monopoly and continuing to apply existing cartel laws would be a perfectly fine approach to tackling this problem. It's really disingenuous to imply we can't fix this. We can and have. It's like people don't remember "Robber baron" history at all...
Further - It's REALLY hard to keep a cartel stable (much less secret) if there are more than single-digit members. Hell - OPEC is a great example. It's only 12 country members, and they can barely hold the thing together. Angola just left last year over disagreements...
So breaking up the monopoly and continuing to apply existing cartel laws would be a perfectly fine approach to tackling this problem. It's really disingenuous to imply we can't fix this. We can and have. It's like people don't remember "Robber baron" history at all...
Given the history of the world, and the inability for any government to enforce such a "fair" market, ever. I feel this is extremely naive.
Do you work in tech? Do you hope your startup is acquired? I think a lot of people here would not favor the idea of companies not being able to buy other companies.
It’s not a Boolean.
Traditionally in the US, monopolies are managed by either forcing breakup/divestiture (the the company is already a monopoly) or regulating the maximum market share consolidation (preventing mergers which consolidate beyond that threshold).
And tech is different from agriculture. Governments will go overboard to prevent famine or hyperinflation of food prices because both with cause massive political and social instability. Tech doesn’t (currently) plan an equivalent role in our lives, so people could tolerate monopolistic behavior in tech longer than in core agriculture.
Traditionally in the US, monopolies are managed by either forcing breakup/divestiture (the the company is already a monopoly) or regulating the maximum market share consolidation (preventing mergers which consolidate beyond that threshold).
And tech is different from agriculture. Governments will go overboard to prevent famine or hyperinflation of food prices because both with cause massive political and social instability. Tech doesn’t (currently) plan an equivalent role in our lives, so people could tolerate monopolistic behavior in tech longer than in core agriculture.
You can both be opposed to monopolies and in favor of sensible acquisitions.
Being pro-markets and pro-capitalism is not the same thing as being in favor of letting companies run rampant with M&A with no consideration for market power or monopolization.
Being pro-markets and pro-capitalism is not the same thing as being in favor of letting companies run rampant with M&A with no consideration for market power or monopolization.
> this is the inevitable end-game of unfettered capitalism
Lol "if cheeto wants to end corruption he'd do <socialist things>"
I'm in awe, friend.
I'm in awe, friend.
If you consider breaking up big companies to be "socialist", then there is no problem with that type of "socialism" except associations that only exist in your head because you are considering every kind of "socialism" to be the same thing.
> Or just put the entire industry under public control by nationalizing the industry.
Explain what these words in the sequence they were presented mean.
Are you sure you're right, at all?
Explain what these words in the sequence they were presented mean.
Are you sure you're right, at all?
That wasn't the main idea (which is also the idea that mentioned Trump), that was a secondary one. The main idea was just breakups. The comment I replied to summarized the whole suggestion as socialism.
I have 20 hens and 2 roosters (living in a country village where neighbours like the authentic rural vibes) I buy 50kg of feed every 6 weeks for (equivalent)$23. Outside of winter we average 7-12 eggs a day and in winter about 2-4 a day. What we sell covers the cost of feed (except for winter)The birds free range all day and have large compost heaps and worm farms to gorge themselves on. Before moving to the country we had 4 hens in a city garden which worked out to a greater cost per egg due to the lesser free-ranging opportunities but still cheaper than a caged egg from a supermarket. Once you have your own hens you'll never go back to factory eggs!
True. Also, as someone with 30 hens which will soon be coming into peak spring production, I look forward to selling my extra eggs at current prices, assuming they don't fall soon. It never fails: when egg prices go up, I get family and friends hitting me up to buy some eggs at $3/dozen; and then when the store prices fall below that, I don't hear from them and I'm feeding the extras to my dogs.
It's funny how some things (real estate) are supposed to keep going up in price, and it's a disaster that requires government intervention if they don't, while for other things (eggs) just the opposite is true. I suppose it depends on who benefits from each.
It's funny how some things (real estate) are supposed to keep going up in price, and it's a disaster that requires government intervention if they don't, while for other things (eggs) just the opposite is true. I suppose it depends on who benefits from each.
This is kind of an odd article in that it pulls NASS stats for egg-laying pullets to make a case for steady egg production, but NASS publishes a monthly breakdown of raw (dozen) egg production, and if you graph that, you see we've been cruising along at the lowest production rates we've had in over 10 years, despite tens of millions in added population.
The article had me at "European Chicken Monopoly In Control of US Egg Market." The rest is interesting, but fairly predictable in outcome. Normally competition will drive prices down when margins are good. In this case, the monopoly breaks that cycle and is like ... "Mmm, I like these margins, thanks."
p.s. It also explains why at my local Pacific Northwest family owned market, there were plenty of $4.99 and $6.99 free range eggs per dozen for sale -- I believe this small chain prefers local suppliers.
I went to the trouble of finding monthly egg production totals for the US based on "NASS quick stats."
https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/80AF9DAE-99AE-31D0-...
Hopefully yall can make heads or tails of the data.
The querying tool is also linked at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/#80AF9DAE-99AE-31D0-8F1C-EC...
https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/80AF9DAE-99AE-31D0-...
Hopefully yall can make heads or tails of the data.
The querying tool is also linked at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/#80AF9DAE-99AE-31D0-8F1C-EC...
That data means that reversing the rule that prevented meat chicken eggs from being sold will have a negligible impact on the crisis:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/national-chicken-council-asks-fda...
It also means this is not going to be a huge impact either:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/turkey-export-15...
That import is 240,000,000 eggs if my math is right. If it is spread over a few months we will barely notice it. If it were achieved in a single month, it might be more noticeable.
I am reasoning mostly based on significant figures. I did not compare historical lows to production figures to try to get an idea of what actual demand is and I assume there is a bit of a smoothing effect that allows a surplus and shortfall in adjacent months to cancel.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/national-chicken-council-asks-fda...
It also means this is not going to be a huge impact either:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/turkey-export-15...
That import is 240,000,000 eggs if my math is right. If it is spread over a few months we will barely notice it. If it were achieved in a single month, it might be more noticeable.
I am reasoning mostly based on significant figures. I did not compare historical lows to production figures to try to get an idea of what actual demand is and I assume there is a bit of a smoothing effect that allows a surplus and shortfall in adjacent months to cancel.
Here's a chart of the egg production from the data you found (Jan 2013 to Jan 2025). [1]
Added 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order curve fits to give an idea of the general trends in production.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/OikRTHL.png
Added 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order curve fits to give an idea of the general trends in production.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/OikRTHL.png
This seems to align with the article. The article states 3 to 5 percent decline after 2021. I see about the same in this graph.
It sounds like it may be the result of standard corporate business practices. Lower prices, take on debt if necessary, until smaller players cannot compete, buy them all up for cheap, then once most of the smaller competitors are out of business (bought out or bankrupt), start pumping up the prices again and use the proceeds to pay off debts. Insiders can dump stocks based on record profit valuations.
> start pumping up the prices again
what stops new entrants from reaping this price rise? Your monopoly would have to prevent new entrants from even starting. That would be where monopoly laws come into effect.
what stops new entrants from reaping this price rise? Your monopoly would have to prevent new entrants from even starting. That would be where monopoly laws come into effect.
They can, and the incentive is there but re-entering the market by starting from scratch is tough and takes time. They have to get the land, build the barns/hangars to keep the chickens, apply for licenses, buy equipment, find chicken feed distributors, find customers, etc... Then who knows, maybe by the time they're set up again and just starting to become profitable after a few years, the big corporation who control the egg market will pull the plug and send prices diving again... Pushing all the new entrants to bankruptcy then again the big corporation will be buying up their assets for cheap using cheap debt... Keep repeating over and over, just lobby politicians to add more red tape to control how long it takes to set up a business... That way the big corporation has a certain time window during which they can accumulate massive profits which they can later use to buy up competitors... They also use the interest rates to time everything. Take out a loan to buy businesses when interest rates are at their peak then ride the interest rates on the way down as you refinance and pay off your loans and watch your margins soar... All while your competitors are scrambling to try to take advantage of the high prices and spending tons of money setting up businesses which will belong to you in a few years' time.
> fake “animal welfare” program designed to reduce overall flock numbers rather than improve hen’s lives.
I love examples like this showing how this moral cultural movements are often just propaganda for nefarious purposes. People talk about recycling being pushed by the plastics industry but I’m sure there are more in the environmental side of things.
I love examples like this showing how this moral cultural movements are often just propaganda for nefarious purposes. People talk about recycling being pushed by the plastics industry but I’m sure there are more in the environmental side of things.
Did you read the linked evidence that the "animal welfare" program was fake? What part of it did you interpret as fake? What evidence supports your conclusion that this is an example of "propaganda for nefarious purposes"?
I agree with the description in the linked document - defendants presented "substantial evidence that grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards", companies like McDonald's, Walmart, and Kroger demanded or required the animal welfare standards, the program was developed with input from a "Scientific Advisory Committee" of experts in animal reproductive welfare, and there was pressure from animal-rights groups and consumers for better treatment of hens.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.26...
> For their part, Defendants argued at trial that the UEP Certified Program was a bona fide effort to satisfy customer demand. In Defendants’ view, the UEP Certified Program was a natural response to pressure from animal-welfare groups, buyers, and end consumers. According to Defendants, they felt pressure to make life better for hens.
> In that vein, Defendants presented substantial evidence that the grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards. So did consumers. And so did animal-rights groups.
> For example, before adoption of the UEP Certified Program, Cal-Maine lost McDonald’s as a customer after McDonald’s demanded producers expand the size of cages for their hens. See Defs.’ Ex. 182. And within a few years of the creation of the UEP Certified Program, grocery chains like Walmart and Kroger would purchase eggs only from UEP Certified producers. See Defs.’ Exs. 329, 374, 639.
> According to Defendants, they were simply responding to market demand when they implemented the cage-space restrictions in the UEP Certified Program. The jury heard evidence that the UEP Certified Program was a legitimate animal-welfare program. Specifically, Defendants pointed out that the UEP created the standard after following the guidance of a Scientific Advisory Committee.
> That Committee consisted of an all-star team. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3085:25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong) (“I was very, very pleased. We put our dream team together.”). It was chaired by a leader in the field, Dr. Jeffrey Armstrong, who has degrees in physiology, and specializes in the reproductive physiology of farm animals. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3074:19-25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong). Reproductive physiology of farm animals is what it sounds like – how animal reproduction works. Id. at 3075:1-10.
> In sum, the jury learned about the UEP Certified program, and about its standards. And the jury heard dueling views about the purpose of the program.
> Again, Plaintiffs alleged that the UEP Certified Program was a backdoor way to restrict supply. Plaintiffs told the jury that the program required the birds to have more space. More space equals fewer hens in each cage. And fewer hens means fewer eggs.
I agree with the description in the linked document - defendants presented "substantial evidence that grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards", companies like McDonald's, Walmart, and Kroger demanded or required the animal welfare standards, the program was developed with input from a "Scientific Advisory Committee" of experts in animal reproductive welfare, and there was pressure from animal-rights groups and consumers for better treatment of hens.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.26...
> For their part, Defendants argued at trial that the UEP Certified Program was a bona fide effort to satisfy customer demand. In Defendants’ view, the UEP Certified Program was a natural response to pressure from animal-welfare groups, buyers, and end consumers. According to Defendants, they felt pressure to make life better for hens.
> In that vein, Defendants presented substantial evidence that the grocery stores and other customers demanded animal-welfare standards. So did consumers. And so did animal-rights groups.
> For example, before adoption of the UEP Certified Program, Cal-Maine lost McDonald’s as a customer after McDonald’s demanded producers expand the size of cages for their hens. See Defs.’ Ex. 182. And within a few years of the creation of the UEP Certified Program, grocery chains like Walmart and Kroger would purchase eggs only from UEP Certified producers. See Defs.’ Exs. 329, 374, 639.
> According to Defendants, they were simply responding to market demand when they implemented the cage-space restrictions in the UEP Certified Program. The jury heard evidence that the UEP Certified Program was a legitimate animal-welfare program. Specifically, Defendants pointed out that the UEP created the standard after following the guidance of a Scientific Advisory Committee.
> That Committee consisted of an all-star team. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3085:25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong) (“I was very, very pleased. We put our dream team together.”). It was chaired by a leader in the field, Dr. Jeffrey Armstrong, who has degrees in physiology, and specializes in the reproductive physiology of farm animals. See 11/1/23 Trial Tr., at 3074:19-25 (Dckt. No. 657) (Armstrong). Reproductive physiology of farm animals is what it sounds like – how animal reproduction works. Id. at 3075:1-10.
> In sum, the jury learned about the UEP Certified program, and about its standards. And the jury heard dueling views about the purpose of the program.
> Again, Plaintiffs alleged that the UEP Certified Program was a backdoor way to restrict supply. Plaintiffs told the jury that the program required the birds to have more space. More space equals fewer hens in each cage. And fewer hens means fewer eggs.
I’m sure there is real demand for animal welfare. But presumably that would have hurt profits which is why they weren’t doing it in the first place.
But once they discovered that it’s a convenient excuse to raise their profit margins, they hopped onboard.
But once they discovered that it’s a convenient excuse to raise their profit margins, they hopped onboard.
I think that's a more defensible position than "fake 'animal welfare'" and "propaganda for nefarious purposes". I suppose one could see giving hens room to move as "a convenient excuse to raise profit margins", but perhaps it's more like using sustainable packaging to reduce shipping costs.
I’m just quoting the article… I don’t think they’re saying that animal welfare didn’t improve, but that the purpose of the program was an excuse to raise profit margins.
It’s not exactly greenwashing but it is used as a political tool nevertheless.
It’s not exactly greenwashing but it is used as a political tool nevertheless.
Egg prices are high compared to what they used to cost but still under $1.00 for a two-egg meal. There's not a protein source that's much cheaper, I think the egg producers are exploiting a certain inelasticity of demand. People don't like the price increases but eggs are still very cheap food.
So in your view, potential monopolistic price fixing is not a concern as long as the absolute per-unit numbers are relatively low?
By that logic, we’d probably still be paying double-digit cents per minute for long distance calls. (Less than a dollar - a small price to pay to talk to your loved ones across the country!)
By that logic, we’d probably still be paying double-digit cents per minute for long distance calls. (Less than a dollar - a small price to pay to talk to your loved ones across the country!)
The OP is providing a potential reason why people continue to buy eggs and are not rushing to alternatives.
which, btw, would also be OK if that was somewhere close to the actual marginal cost of those calls. But of course, it wasn't even in the same universe, let alone ballpark.
I didn't say it wasn't a concern.
[deleted]
How is it under $1.00 for a two-egg meal when I'm lucky to find them even at $6.00/dozen?
$1 for 8g of protein?
Tuna/sardines are a bargain by that measure.
Tuna/sardines are a bargain by that measure.
Eggs only have 4 grams of protein each? It is probably 5.5 to 6 grams per egg. Few Americans that I know can stomach eating sardines at the same rate as eggs.
Okay, then $1 for 12g. Same point.
Are you seeing how much a can of sardines go for these days? Somehow they’ve been priced as a delicacy. Even spam isn’t cheap anymore.
$1 per 3.75 oz can, with free shipping. [1]
So $4.27 per lb.
Canned chicken can be cheaper.
[1] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Sardines-in-Water-3-7...
So $4.27 per lb.
Canned chicken can be cheaper.
[1] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Sardines-in-Water-3-7...
160 calories isn't much of a meal.
We see this all the time. There is some shock or reduction to supply and the price goes up but it always goes up way more than the supply change would necessarily warrant. Then it takes forever to return to normal (if it ever does).
Interestingly, in the early weeks of the Kamala Harris campaign last year, she actually advocated to fighting or stopping "price gouging", something that was wildly popular: 66% of respondents on a Harris Poll approved [1]. After bringing on her brother-in-law and the former Biden campaign staff however, she never mentioned it again because Wall Street didn't like it.
Now you will find all sorts of articles online from serious outlets about how price gouging won't work and they'll simply put a bullhorn in front of economists who say that but there is precedent, namely when Nixon put in a freeze on prices and wages [2].
Now one can agree or disagree with such a policy, whether it's a long term fix or not and so on but we can still say the following:
1. There is absolutely opportunistic price gouging going on, way more than the avian flu would otherwise warrant. This is true for so many things beyond eggs; and
2. Life is becoming unaffordable, especially with housing and food. Ordinary people feel this. Politicians who address those issues will resonate with voters; and
3. Gutting the executive branch, which is currently going on, will only make this worse as there will be even less enforcement of price-fixing than there currently is.
[1]: https://theharrispoll.com/briefs/america-this-week-wave-240/
[2]: https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/09/22/nixons-famous-price-...
Interestingly, in the early weeks of the Kamala Harris campaign last year, she actually advocated to fighting or stopping "price gouging", something that was wildly popular: 66% of respondents on a Harris Poll approved [1]. After bringing on her brother-in-law and the former Biden campaign staff however, she never mentioned it again because Wall Street didn't like it.
Now you will find all sorts of articles online from serious outlets about how price gouging won't work and they'll simply put a bullhorn in front of economists who say that but there is precedent, namely when Nixon put in a freeze on prices and wages [2].
Now one can agree or disagree with such a policy, whether it's a long term fix or not and so on but we can still say the following:
1. There is absolutely opportunistic price gouging going on, way more than the avian flu would otherwise warrant. This is true for so many things beyond eggs; and
2. Life is becoming unaffordable, especially with housing and food. Ordinary people feel this. Politicians who address those issues will resonate with voters; and
3. Gutting the executive branch, which is currently going on, will only make this worse as there will be even less enforcement of price-fixing than there currently is.
[1]: https://theharrispoll.com/briefs/america-this-week-wave-240/
[2]: https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/09/22/nixons-famous-price-...
If anything, there is a shortage of eggs (some stores near me have run out), which means prices should be higher not lower.
Yes, and when toilet paper sold out in the pandemic it should have been priced higher. Yeah it sucks to pay more but it also deters hoarding which was a huge contributor to the problem.
Correct.
And those people who scalped toilet paper and sanitizer....their motivations may be scammy, but they were correcting a market that wasn't correcting itself.
Yeah it would suck for sanitizer to cost 10x as much, but that's the only thing that's going to make people ration it like they should.
And those people who scalped toilet paper and sanitizer....their motivations may be scammy, but they were correcting a market that wasn't correcting itself.
Yeah it would suck for sanitizer to cost 10x as much, but that's the only thing that's going to make people ration it like they should.
The executive branch is currently being gutted?
I'll give you one guess as to which branch of government most agencies belong to. Yes, agencies are being gutted.
Yes, agreed, the agencies were put in place by executive order and they're being gutted. However, that doesn't mean the executive branch is being gutted. Gutted means "to destroy the essential power or effectiveness of". Maybe there's confusion about the word "gutted"?
Indeed the power and effective of agencies is being dramatically reduced. I believe this is the point that was trying to be made.
However, rulings like Trump v. United States vastly expand the power of the executive branch. Even if you're one of those people who believes in Unitary Executive Theory, prior to Trump v. United States, those powers were hypothetical. Hence the need for a ruling. It's to be seen whether a Unitary Executive would be more effective.
Indeed the power and effective of agencies is being dramatically reduced. I believe this is the point that was trying to be made.
However, rulings like Trump v. United States vastly expand the power of the executive branch. Even if you're one of those people who believes in Unitary Executive Theory, prior to Trump v. United States, those powers were hypothetical. Hence the need for a ruling. It's to be seen whether a Unitary Executive would be more effective.
Have no idea why this was downvoted.
>from serious outlets about how price gouging won't work
I think you meant to say "price freezes", "anti-gouging regulation" or similar.
>from serious outlets about how price gouging won't work
I think you meant to say "price freezes", "anti-gouging regulation" or similar.
Interestingly, the investigation appears to have begun right after egg prices started to drop:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eggs-us
No one appears to be reporting the drop yet, which is fair since it is not clear the trend will continue as fundamentals have not changed beyond possible imports from Turkey.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eggs-us
No one appears to be reporting the drop yet, which is fair since it is not clear the trend will continue as fundamentals have not changed beyond possible imports from Turkey.
5 dozen lucerne eggs is $50 here in SF at Safeway, as of this morny. A few weeks to a month ago, I recall it being $5-$6 for one dozen.
The drop is very recent and refers to upstream prices for contracts, which might have not even been delivered to stores yet. I had been watching the contract prices and successfully predicted increases in my local prices based on it, although the increases tended to lag behind the contract pricing changes by a week or more. I had been expecting another increase when the drop occurred so it is unclear to me whether the drop prevented another increase or is something we will see passed to us in the next week or two.
That said, Safeway is an expensive store. Shop at Aldi. It is cheaper. Aldi is so much cheaper that you likely could have groceries delivered from it via Instacart and still save money.
That said, Safeway is an expensive store. Shop at Aldi. It is cheaper. Aldi is so much cheaper that you likely could have groceries delivered from it via Instacart and still save money.
Alas! I thoroughly enjoyed Kevin Hassett's Face the Nation comedy skit "Perimeter of Dead Chickens".
I guess I should have known that it was a misdirect...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-hassett-face-the-nation-t...
I guess I should have known that it was a misdirect...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-hassett-face-the-nation-t...
One solution would be for customers to boycott the big egg producers and refuse to buy their eggs even when they do flood the market with cheaper ones when they aim to put small producers out of business. However, that does require egg consumers to stick to their guns and only buy from the independants.
Anyone frequenting more than one grocery store can quickly see its not a supply and demand issue setting prices. A few grocery stores never budged setting prices and charged the same and then the frantic news cycle caused people to buy 4x the amount of eggs they need, causing inventory shortages.
And then there are other stores that saw this as an opportunity to raise egg prices to like $13 a dozen. Those eggs basically go unsold.
I think at this point the biggest factor in the egg supply crunch is that its so publicized and making people act poorly. As a result we see the effective number of available eggs crash as some of these are marked up and go unsold and some linger in someones fridge for a month before consumption. If everyone just bought their usual load of eggs maybe there wouldn’t even be a supply issue.
And then there are other stores that saw this as an opportunity to raise egg prices to like $13 a dozen. Those eggs basically go unsold.
I think at this point the biggest factor in the egg supply crunch is that its so publicized and making people act poorly. As a result we see the effective number of available eggs crash as some of these are marked up and go unsold and some linger in someones fridge for a month before consumption. If everyone just bought their usual load of eggs maybe there wouldn’t even be a supply issue.
> In other words, the current egg crisis is what the Sovietization of American business looks like.
On the contrary - there's nothing more American than corporations abusing their oligopoly status for financial gain.
On the contrary - there's nothing more American than corporations abusing their oligopoly status for financial gain.
I also think it's a very poor choice of words. If Sovietization meant introducing inefficiencies and bureaucracy in the egg supply chain, this is not even remotely what the article claims is going on here: the eggs producers are very intentionally (rather than incompetently or bureaucratically) throttling the egg production because it's more profitable to produce less
If the authors meant monopolization of the egg supply, well, that's also pretty far from being uniquely a Soviet phenomenon.
It was a really dumb thing to bring up and it chips away at the authors' credibility.
Edits: grammar
It was a really dumb thing to bring up and it chips away at the authors' credibility.
Edits: grammar
Monopolies, oligopolies and cartels. These are the end-game of any capitalist system where the overriding priority is profit. I am not even going to morally fault any of the individual decisions-makers here. They are playing the game within the system that exists, not as one would like it to be. Step zero in changing this situation is helping people understand that capitalism is designed to maximize profits, not cost or supply. That this happens at all is a temporary side-effect of competition, which itself is an inefficiency when optimizing for profits. Proponents of capitalism will focus on competition as if it were some kind of natural condition that keeps everyone honest. Instead, competition leads to collusion, consolidation, and regulation (regulatory capture) to create as high a barrier as possible to enter the market.
> More hens, less income!
Layoff some hens
Layoff some hens
A local discount grocery chain near me hasn't had shortages nor have they inflated prices. Store brand eggs are $6 for 18. This is in an area where groceries are normally quite expensive.
Naturally they could have it be a loss leader, but then I would expect them to be curtailing quantities. The shelves are fully stocked every time I'm there.
The other chains, all more expensive, have half or third stocked shelves and a dozen eggs is $7-8 and up.
The egg "shortage" is manufactured bullshit. There's only a handful of major egg producers and they're clearly in collusion.
Just like the shortages that supposedly lasted a while during the pandemic; CEOs were bragging on earnings that they had raised prices more than their costs went up, and they kept them high after costs dropped - they decided to keep them high because people would pay that.
Apparently they don't care that a lot of things folks in poverty / low income buy...aren't discretionary spending.
Naturally they could have it be a loss leader, but then I would expect them to be curtailing quantities. The shelves are fully stocked every time I'm there.
The other chains, all more expensive, have half or third stocked shelves and a dozen eggs is $7-8 and up.
The egg "shortage" is manufactured bullshit. There's only a handful of major egg producers and they're clearly in collusion.
Just like the shortages that supposedly lasted a while during the pandemic; CEOs were bragging on earnings that they had raised prices more than their costs went up, and they kept them high after costs dropped - they decided to keep them high because people would pay that.
Apparently they don't care that a lot of things folks in poverty / low income buy...aren't discretionary spending.
In Houston we also have eggs for $0.34/each as you do ... but those same eggs were $0.21 each in January. So perhaps your $6 per 18 is the new raised price? Our cheapest eggs have increased in price by 62% in the past 60 days.
It depends on the grocers contracts. Trader joes is famously selling eggs at $3.50 a dozen since they negotiated a good price a while ago.
I bet Agri Stats is involved to some degree with price fixing above the baseline of supply intersecting demand.
Harris and Walz campaigned specifically on addressing the issues raised by this article. People didn't care if they even understood. We have someone that's implementing a kleptocracy instead.
This is not getting solved for at least a decade, probably 50+ years before another regime change occurs.
This is not getting solved for at least a decade, probably 50+ years before another regime change occurs.
It does make me wonder what it will take to have a government with an appetite for trust busting again.
It might happen when the pop media allows for it. It's very easy to belive the the Govt and all media are in symbiotic cahoots w each other.
Vance was pretty anti-trust, but seemingly more against big tech?
Vance is in bed with thiel he is explicitly allied with big tech
A lot of good that's doing. Big tech was sitting front row for the inauguration.
Enjoy reading Teddy Roosevelt book as an inspiration
> Harris and Walz campaigned specifically on addressing the issues raised by this article.
No, they didn't. They campaigned on a vague anti-"price gouging" promise while pretending they didn't even know who Lina Khan, Johnathan Kanter and Rohit Chopra were.
Harris never made it clear if any of their jobs were safe, her advisor and brother-in-law Tony West was Uber's general counsel, and Mark Cuban, a proxy for Harris during the campaign, screamed from the rooftops how much he hated them all and how they would be gone if Harris won (until the campaign told him to stop saying that.)
The only people mentioning antitrust during the campaign were on the Republican side, all the way up to Vance at least, and they continue to engage even after winning. Democrats were campaigning on companies "doing better" and not "taking advantage" and on anything else that wouldn't be definable or enforceable.
-----
edit: it's important to mention that this is the second avian flu outbreak since covid to kill an enormous (but not as enormous as it sounds) number of birds, the previous outbreak was used as an excuse to raise the prices just as high, and egg profits skyrocketed. This happened entirely during the Biden administration. I don't know how Harris would have differed, but we have already seen the Biden response and it was to let everyone get away with whatever.
No, they didn't. They campaigned on a vague anti-"price gouging" promise while pretending they didn't even know who Lina Khan, Johnathan Kanter and Rohit Chopra were.
Harris never made it clear if any of their jobs were safe, her advisor and brother-in-law Tony West was Uber's general counsel, and Mark Cuban, a proxy for Harris during the campaign, screamed from the rooftops how much he hated them all and how they would be gone if Harris won (until the campaign told him to stop saying that.)
The only people mentioning antitrust during the campaign were on the Republican side, all the way up to Vance at least, and they continue to engage even after winning. Democrats were campaigning on companies "doing better" and not "taking advantage" and on anything else that wouldn't be definable or enforceable.
-----
edit: it's important to mention that this is the second avian flu outbreak since covid to kill an enormous (but not as enormous as it sounds) number of birds, the previous outbreak was used as an excuse to raise the prices just as high, and egg profits skyrocketed. This happened entirely during the Biden administration. I don't know how Harris would have differed, but we have already seen the Biden response and it was to let everyone get away with whatever.
> They campaigned on a vague anti-"price gouging" promise while pretending they didn't even know who Lina Khan, Johnathan Kanter and Rohit Chopra were.
It’s so absolutely wild what the litmus tests are for each party. Absolutely fucking wild.
It’s so absolutely wild what the litmus tests are for each party. Absolutely fucking wild.
almosthere(1)
> 50+ years before another regime change occurs.
A little pessimistic, no?
People thought the blue wave would never end after Obama was elected.
No way to tell what the future holds.
A little pessimistic, no?
People thought the blue wave would never end after Obama was elected.
No way to tell what the future holds.
The Democratic Party started working with disaffected GOP at the end of the election rather than their own constituents yelling for representation.
They find this slide in tyranny more acceptable than fighting against it.
What are you talking about? If the dems keep to themselves nothing will change.
OK so the Dems successfully brought GOP influence into the party and beat Donald Trump in 2024.
What's that... Oh they lost in normal Democratic strongholds?
What's that... Oh they lost in normal Democratic strongholds?
Trump will try a dictator power grab. This isn't even questionable seeing as he already tried to do this. The only question at this point is if everyone else in power goes along with it or they scoff like they did last time.
Seeing as how there are a lot less principled people involved, and the oligarchs enjoy the idea of personal techno-fiefdoms the odds are at least non-negligible that the USA as a democracy could end.
Seeing as how there are a lot less principled people involved, and the oligarchs enjoy the idea of personal techno-fiefdoms the odds are at least non-negligible that the USA as a democracy could end.
Sure, but I have money on him not living to the end of his term.
I don’t think most republicans like trump, he just has a cult following.
I also don’t think that any other republican can garner that kind of following. Trump has aura in a way that no other public figure has right now.
I don’t think any regime he sets up would survive his death.
I don’t think most republicans like trump, he just has a cult following.
I also don’t think that any other republican can garner that kind of following. Trump has aura in a way that no other public figure has right now.
I don’t think any regime he sets up would survive his death.
Sir, Harris did nothing about high egg prices when she was in office. Neither did Biden. They presided over some of the highest inflation in American history. Whether it was their fault or not they didn't do a damn thing to fix it.
What is Trump doing? Promoting imports of cheaper eggs from abroad, if nothing else. He is the first politician this century to make a big deal out of balancing the budget and our imports/exports. This will not be a painless process but something has to be done.
What is Trump doing? Promoting imports of cheaper eggs from abroad, if nothing else. He is the first politician this century to make a big deal out of balancing the budget and our imports/exports. This will not be a painless process but something has to be done.
Biden and harris didn't do anything to stop inflation? They passed multiple bills explicitly targeting it.You do know we are handling inflation better than others specifically because Biden focused on it right?
Lol no, the Democrats did the classic Congress custom of passing a bill that is named exactly the opposite of what it is. The Inflation Reduction Act was a massive spending bill that contributed to higher inflation. I didn't see a single thing that the previous administration did to lower inflation in a noticeable way. They did drain the strategic petroleum reserve to record lows which did approximately fuck all for gas prices, and put the country in a strategically bad spot.
Some of the highest inflation in American history? Easy to see you weren't around in 1979. Try 14% inflation. This? This was very little.
Inflation was measured different in 1979. According to shadowstats.com, real comparable CPI peaked at like 15% a year or two ago. Prices in general are up at least about 50% from 5 years ago.
9.1% is not far off.
When did we have 9.1%? And for how long did we have it? 14% was the peak, but we had above 10% for several years, IIRC.
2022, and the rest is shifting goalposts from what OP said:
> They presided over some of the highest inflation in American history.
Their statement is completely accurate.
> They presided over some of the highest inflation in American history.
Their statement is completely accurate.
[deleted]
We'll see. We're only a couple months into this 'regime' - might be interesting to try a different strategy for a little while.
H&W may have campaigned on this, but there's two things critical to good advertising: offering what people want, and offering it credibly.
H&W may have campaigned on this, but there's two things critical to good advertising: offering what people want, and offering it credibly.
> might be interesting to try a different strategy for a little while.
Maybe interesting to you and others largely insulated from the downsides of "a different strategy". Others might not find it so "interesting" at all ...
Maybe interesting to you and others largely insulated from the downsides of "a different strategy". Others might not find it so "interesting" at all ...
What would the status quo be? Continue to escalate in Ukraine? Pile on more debt?
I can’t see how that wouldn’t lead to debasement and ultimately the collapse of the US hegemony. At least this way we will have TSMC and other local production capacity.
I can’t see how that wouldn’t lead to debasement and ultimately the collapse of the US hegemony. At least this way we will have TSMC and other local production capacity.
The current administration is doing a very fine job ... of collapsing whatever US hegemony still exists.
The status quo would be, for example:
* continuing to honor the social safety net constructed incrementally since 1929
* honoring contracts with overseas organizations
* honoring the 200+ year old understanding that Congress controls spending, creates government departments, and establishes rules for the hiring and firing of government employees
* retaining an understanding of the complex and deeply woven role of the federal government, along with the argument known as "Chestertons fence" (don't tear down a fence till you understand why it was built)
* continuing to structure taxation based on (a) the marginal value of income (b) the concept that the impact of taxation should be roughly equal no matter what your income level is
* resist the expansion of worldwide ideologies that lead to a decrease in personal liberty and/or is accompanied by the use of military force to acquire another nation's territory (we've never been close to perfect on this, but it's nice to have an ideal in mind rather than just dropping any attempt at a morally just world).
Debt is only a problem if you subscribe to heterodox ideas about how national economies with sovereign currencies operate (or worse, imagine that national economies function like household or business economies).
The status quo would be, for example:
* continuing to honor the social safety net constructed incrementally since 1929
* honoring contracts with overseas organizations
* honoring the 200+ year old understanding that Congress controls spending, creates government departments, and establishes rules for the hiring and firing of government employees
* retaining an understanding of the complex and deeply woven role of the federal government, along with the argument known as "Chestertons fence" (don't tear down a fence till you understand why it was built)
* continuing to structure taxation based on (a) the marginal value of income (b) the concept that the impact of taxation should be roughly equal no matter what your income level is
* resist the expansion of worldwide ideologies that lead to a decrease in personal liberty and/or is accompanied by the use of military force to acquire another nation's territory (we've never been close to perfect on this, but it's nice to have an ideal in mind rather than just dropping any attempt at a morally just world).
Debt is only a problem if you subscribe to heterodox ideas about how national economies with sovereign currencies operate (or worse, imagine that national economies function like household or business economies).
So what I’m hearing is:
* Keep all the existing obligations
* Continue to run a deficit
* Hope that we can finance these growing expenses through treasuries or debasement
* all the while ignoring the hollowing out of American industrial base and expertise
* also allowing a large portion of the population to become redundant, unproductive, and irrelevant in the world economy
[deleted]
> Hope that we can finance these growing expenses through treasuries or debasement
No need for "debasement", but sure.
> all the while ignoring the hollowing out
No, we should not be doing this. But the left has been talking about this for decades and was mocked for it. The idea that billionaires and the recipients of their largesse are how we stop "ignoring the hollowing out" just seems laughable to me.
> allowing a large portion of the population to become redundant, unproductive, and irrelevant in the world economy
when the left raised these objections to global trade treaties that ignored labo mobility, they were roundly ignored and ridiculed. Again, the idea that the very class of people who wanted these changes (free movement of capital, tax-free repatriation of profit, tariff-free importation of foreign produced goods, massively reduced labor costs) are the people who will oversee the reversal of their effects just seems laughable to me.
These are absolutely things we should focused on, and it is true that the left-as-represented-by-the-Democratic party has not really done so (certainly not until Biden, and even then it was relatively weak sauce). But the idea that this administration is actually motivated by a desire to solve these problems and not simply reduce costs and taxes for the capital class ... again, it just seems laughable to me.
No need for "debasement", but sure.
> all the while ignoring the hollowing out
No, we should not be doing this. But the left has been talking about this for decades and was mocked for it. The idea that billionaires and the recipients of their largesse are how we stop "ignoring the hollowing out" just seems laughable to me.
> allowing a large portion of the population to become redundant, unproductive, and irrelevant in the world economy
when the left raised these objections to global trade treaties that ignored labo mobility, they were roundly ignored and ridiculed. Again, the idea that the very class of people who wanted these changes (free movement of capital, tax-free repatriation of profit, tariff-free importation of foreign produced goods, massively reduced labor costs) are the people who will oversee the reversal of their effects just seems laughable to me.
These are absolutely things we should focused on, and it is true that the left-as-represented-by-the-Democratic party has not really done so (certainly not until Biden, and even then it was relatively weak sauce). But the idea that this administration is actually motivated by a desire to solve these problems and not simply reduce costs and taxes for the capital class ... again, it just seems laughable to me.
>> all the while ignoring the hollowing out of American industrial base and expertise
> But the left has been talking about this for decades and was mocked for it.
> These are absolutely things we should focused on, and it is true that the left-as-represented-by-the-Democratic party has not really done so (certainly not until Biden, and even then it was relatively weak sauce).
So, you're right - up until this "regime change" not a lot has been done. And at least this is moving in approximately the right direction. Even if this is a rough amputation, at the very least it's likely to remove the tumor, when nothing up till now has done so.
> These are absolutely things we should focused on, and it is true that the left-as-represented-by-the-Democratic party has not really done so (certainly not until Biden, and even then it was relatively weak sauce).
So, you're right - up until this "regime change" not a lot has been done. And at least this is moving in approximately the right direction. Even if this is a rough amputation, at the very least it's likely to remove the tumor, when nothing up till now has done so.
There is absolutely nothing the administration is doing that will have any impact on this stuff. That's not suprising for two reasons (a) the current administration obviously, clearly, self-admittedly represents the interest of the capital class (b) the current administration is so willfully ignorant and utterly incompetent at so many things that even if (a) was not true, they would be unable to anything to advance on these issues.
To take just a single example: tariffs. It is true that if one were interested in re-growing a domestic manufacturing base, tariffs might be one tool you might use to help promote that (they also might not be). So now we have an administration that has actually gone with tariffs, but in such a ridiculous fashion that it is more or less certain that they will have no such impact on the US economy. Tariffs on! Tariffs off! Tariffs on! Tariffs off for my friends! etc. etc. In fact, the most charitable interpretation of the current tariff strategy is as a back door for more ass-kissing by companies and economic sectors.
The same applies to everything else they've done so far. This will not remove the tumor, though it may amputate enough limbs that the tumor is the least of our worries.
To take just a single example: tariffs. It is true that if one were interested in re-growing a domestic manufacturing base, tariffs might be one tool you might use to help promote that (they also might not be). So now we have an administration that has actually gone with tariffs, but in such a ridiculous fashion that it is more or less certain that they will have no such impact on the US economy. Tariffs on! Tariffs off! Tariffs on! Tariffs off for my friends! etc. etc. In fact, the most charitable interpretation of the current tariff strategy is as a back door for more ass-kissing by companies and economic sectors.
The same applies to everything else they've done so far. This will not remove the tumor, though it may amputate enough limbs that the tumor is the least of our worries.
What I think you've failed to account for is that what you see as important is not what a lot of people see as important. And you may or may not have better reasons for your perspective.
For example: a lot of people see massive beurocracy as a bad thing. Cutting it back, even in very rough fashion, even with potentially selfish motives, is seen as a good thing.
In your example re: tariffs. What's interesting is that tariffs are fundamentally a social exercise. You can use them with a light touch, to encourage/discourage specific industries in fine detail, or you can use them as a club to force concessions from other countries. Using it as a club requires an aggressive approach that many people don't even understand and have never themselves experienced. When you don't know how it works, it just looks dumb.
There's a lot that probably is clumsy here, but I think that making absolute statements is showing your hand a bit.
For example: a lot of people see massive beurocracy as a bad thing. Cutting it back, even in very rough fashion, even with potentially selfish motives, is seen as a good thing.
In your example re: tariffs. What's interesting is that tariffs are fundamentally a social exercise. You can use them with a light touch, to encourage/discourage specific industries in fine detail, or you can use them as a club to force concessions from other countries. Using it as a club requires an aggressive approach that many people don't even understand and have never themselves experienced. When you don't know how it works, it just looks dumb.
There's a lot that probably is clumsy here, but I think that making absolute statements is showing your hand a bit.
Don't those heterodox ideas about debt predict these increasing prices?
The heterodox ideas do, yes.
MMT does not.
We don't know who is correct. We do know that one POV is massively favored by those who would like to use the national debt as a reason to impose austerity policies on the US economy.
MMT does not.
We don't know who is correct. We do know that one POV is massively favored by those who would like to use the national debt as a reason to impose austerity policies on the US economy.
What you're calling "heterodox" is obviously wrong, as there has been massive monetary expansion over the past several decades with relatively tame price inflation. The main thing MMT changes is allowing the legislative government to spend the newly-created money for deliberate goals, rather than it just being handed over to the financial industry. Given the massive price inflation we have experienced in housing, education, vehicles, etc - everywhere the new money has been able to go from the financial industry to consumers (to bring up average price inflation as per the overt policy) - I'd say that spreading the new money around more is a no-brainer.
Experimenting with a different approach might be understandable if the austerity wasn't aimed directly at killing the global goodwill that makes such monetary inflation possible - USD's status as the world reserve currency. As it stands, I don't know things would look any different if our country was being controlled by a hostile foreign power intent on destroying us.
Experimenting with a different approach might be understandable if the austerity wasn't aimed directly at killing the global goodwill that makes such monetary inflation possible - USD's status as the world reserve currency. As it stands, I don't know things would look any different if our country was being controlled by a hostile foreign power intent on destroying us.
You use the word heterodox as a thought preventing insult.
On the one hand we have a simple model that 1+1=2. On the other we have someone else proclaimed correct saying it’s not so. But it’s too complex for me to understand.
On the one hand we have a simple model that 1+1=2. On the other we have someone else proclaimed correct saying it’s not so. But it’s too complex for me to understand.
> But it’s too complex for me to understand.
I'm not here to solve your problems.
The fact that you think that all economies can be reduced to something as simple as "1 + 1 = 2" is one of your problems. Good luck.
I'm not here to solve your problems.
The fact that you think that all economies can be reduced to something as simple as "1 + 1 = 2" is one of your problems. Good luck.
Arrogance won’t solve any problems nor convince those who disagree with you.
You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms. Rather than asserting your conclusions and name calling things heterodox.
You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms. Rather than asserting your conclusions and name calling things heterodox.
heterodox is a common term in the economics world. imagine it says "mainstream" if you prefer.
> You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms.
I'm not here to write a text book on economics. I'm here to point out that "debt is bad, we can never carry on like this" is a belief, not a statement of fact.
> You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms.
I'm not here to write a text book on economics. I'm here to point out that "debt is bad, we can never carry on like this" is a belief, not a statement of fact.
"Orthodox" is the word you're looking for. "Heterodox" means not mainstream. MMT is heterodox.
How about "commonsense" instead?
Everything in macroeconomics is a belief, because it is clearly far from a hard science.
Common sense always applies to some degree when it is based on logic. Also my belief is that a system where there is no limits on government spending and debt seems obviously unstable and likely to become infinitely corrupt.
Everything in macroeconomics is a belief, because it is clearly far from a hard science.
Common sense always applies to some degree when it is based on logic. Also my belief is that a system where there is no limits on government spending and debt seems obviously unstable and likely to become infinitely corrupt.
Understanding a problem requires a holistic view of the larger system. An egg producer may say prices are higher Because supply is lower due to culling. Part of that statement is true. The author then zooms out to better understand the larger system.
The truth of a matter deviates significantly from one party’s assertions.
it’s scary to me that people lack the skills, the desire or incentives to understand and objectively seek understanding of what’s happening around us especially in highly charged US political landscape. This isn’t like pure scientific pursuit of knowledge but a more practical day to day ability to question, understand and gather new information with the purpose of developing an objective understanding of the world.